Calvinism and its Secret Universalism

zoidar · Jun 21, 2021

Hammster said:
Okay, why would God not be unjust for punishing someone for sins that His Son paid the penalty for?

This is the court case scenario. The Bible doesn't specifically say that Jesus paid our penalty for sin. He bore our sins, yes. Anyhow, if we take this idea to be correct, Calvinism is still not solving the puzzle.

If the court case scenario is correct, then a person is saved when Jesus was punished for his/her sins. Then there would be no need for the person to have faith. Even Calvinists say that atonement needs to be received for one to be saved. So whether you believe in unlimited atonement or not the same "problem" exists: "Why do we need faith to be saved?" Calvinism is not solving the problem by saying Jesus only bore the sins of those he chose.

So instead of asking the question you asked, I would ask why we need faith for salvation.

Hammster · Jun 21, 2021

zoidar said:
This is the court case scenario. The Bible doesn't specifically say that Jesus paid our penalty for sin. He bore our sins, yes. Anyhow, if we take this idea to be correct, Calvinism is still not solving the puzzle.

If the court case scenario is correct, then a person is saved when Jesus was punished for his/her sins. Then there would be no need for the person to have faith. Even Calvinists say that atonement needs to be received for one to be saved. So whether you believe in unlimited atonement or not the same "problem" exists: "Why do we need faith to be saved?" Calvinism is not solving the problem by saying Jesus only bore the sins of those he chose.

So instead of asking the question you asked, I would ask why we need faith for salvation.

While it doesn’t specifically say He paid our penalty, it’s inferred and implied all throughout the Bible. If we can’t agree that we deserve hell as just recompense for our sins, and Christ's death did something to satisfy God’s wrath, then I’m not sure we will get anywhere in this discussion.

zoidar · Jun 21, 2021

Hammster said:
While it doesn’t specifically say He paid our penalty, it’s inferred and implied all throughout the Bible. If we can’t agree that we deserve hell as just recompense for our sins, and Christ's death did something to satisfy God’s wrath, then I’m not sure we will get anywhere in this discussion.

I do agree we deserve damnation because of our sins, I didn't and won't say anything else. The wrath question is bit harder for me to answer, since I haven't a clearly set view about it, whether the wrath of God was turned away at the cross or when we are justfied? I did argue though from the view you purposed, "the court view".

I think that I would say like you do, that Christ sacrifice appeased God's wrath.

Hammster · Jun 21, 2021

zoidar said:
I do agree we deserve damnation because of our sins, I didn't and won't say anything else. The wrath question is bit harder for me to answer, since I haven't a clearly set view about it, whether the wrath of God was turned away at the cross or when we are justfied? I did argue though from the view you purposed, "the court view".

I think that I would say like you do, that Christ sacrifice appeased God's wrath.

So let’s use that term. If God’s wrath is satisfied for all people for all time, then what is the purpose of hell?

zoidar · Jun 21, 2021

Hammster said:
Okay, why would God not be unjust for punishing someone for sins that His Son paid the penalty for?

I first like to give you an answer to this. I know you've heard it before, because the payment needs to be received.

So let's say you are in court. You have wrecked your neighbour's, who happened to be the judge's car. The judge's own son steps in and talks to his dad, saying he has taken the car to the workshop, and it's as good as new, and that he did it so the judge, his dad would set you free. The judge's anger is appeased by his kindhearted son. He turns to you to do his son's wish, but you say you want no part of it. The judge is furious, first because you wrecked his car and now also because you won't accept his child's generous offer to you. You are sentenced to pay it all in full, even it all has been paid. Would that make the judge unjust?

zoidar · Jun 21, 2021

Hammster said:
So let’s use that term. If God’s wrath is satisfied for all people for all time, then what is the purpose of hell?

That's why I question the idea that the atonement sacrifice turnes God's wrath away until a person is justified. But to answer the question, then God is appeased during "the time of patience", until the day of judgement, where His wrath is renewed on those who refused His Son's offer. Maybe someone else got a better answer?

Hammster · Jun 21, 2021

zoidar said:
I first like to give you an answer to this. I know you've heard it before, because the payment needs to be received.

So let's say you are in court. You have wrecked your neighbour's, who happened to be the judge's car. The judge's own son steps in and talks to his dad, saying he has taken the car to the workshop, and it's as good as new, and that he did it so the judge, his dad would set you free. The judge's anger is appeased by his kindhearted son. He turns to you to do his son's wish, but you say you want no part of it. The judge is furious, first because you wrecked his car and now also because you won't accept his child's generous offer to you. You are sentenced to pay it all in full, even it all has been paid. Would that make the judge unjust?

Of course it would.

Hammster · Jun 21, 2021

zoidar said:
That's why I question the idea that the atonement sacrifice turnes God's wrath away until a person is justified. But to answer the question, then God is appeased during "the time of patience", until the day of judgement, where His wrath is renewed on those who refused His Son's offer. Maybe someone else got a better answer?

Why would He disparage His Son’s sacrifice? It’s actually pretty hateful of Him.

zoidar · Jun 21, 2021

Hammster said:
Of course it would.

Why?

zoidar · Jun 21, 2021

Hammster said:
Why would He disparage His Son’s sacrifice? It’s actually pretty hateful of Him.

Why? Neither His Son wants his sacrifice to save those who have denied him.

Hammster · Jun 21, 2021

zoidar said:
Why?

Because there’s nothing to pay for. At this point, he’s just making things up.

Hammster · Jun 21, 2021

zoidar said:
Why? Neither His Son wants his sacrifice to save those who have denied him.

If Christ’s death actually accomplished something (which I think Colossians 2:14 says it does), and the Father still punished anyone, He thinks little of the sacrifice that He covenanted with His Son to perform.

Chi.C · Jun 21, 2021

dóxatotheó said:
P1) God Loves All and desires all to be saved
P2) God Isn't halfway
P3) Gods Love is Loving his creation like the others
P4) God can give unconditional grace to everyone because he loves everyone and desire them to be saved
P5) God choosing certain people isn't love and its him being partially.
Conclusion: Calvinism is Universalism because God loves all creation and he isn't partially and he can give his unconditional grace to all creation because he loves all his creation equally.
So No nobody disagrees with the sovereignty of God, we disagree with John Calvin's core doctrine. Sorry to say but John Calvinism soft determinism fails according to my premises and conclusions, any rebuttals would be fallacious because P1 and P3 goes together do you agree?
I believe Calvinism fails because these prepositions came to light if any Calvinist has an explanation from my argument; I would love to see it and note: I agree with all scriptures that you believe proves it. I will address those verses after you address my argument against the belief.

I like this logic but it may be unforgivable.

Premise 1) The Divine created both the damned and the elect.
Premise 2) The damned commits sin and blasphemy.
Premise 3) The Divine hates sin and blasphemy

2+3) The Divine hates the damned, the creators of sin and blasphemy.
1+2+3) The Divine hates the Divine, the Creator of the damned.

John Mullally · Jun 21, 2021

Hammster said:
Yeah, you seem to be a bit too emotional for me to continue. I’d love to continue, but not with all of the vitriol.

You have a habit of firing back with what-aboutist one-liners that never addresses in-depth scriptural arguments of other posters. The content of these curt responses frequently prove you are not listening.

zoidar · Jun 22, 2021

Hammster said:
Because there’s nothing to pay for. At this point, he’s just making things up.

Just because something has been fixed, doesn't necessarly free the perpetrator. If someone smashes your car and your dad pays for the damage, I suspect you still would hold the perpetrator responsible, looking for a compensation?

zoidar · Jun 22, 2021

Hammster said:
If Christ’s death actually accomplished something (which I think Colossians 2:14 says it does), and the Father still punished anyone, He thinks little of the sacrifice that He covenanted with His Son to perform.

It feels like you are saying that with my view of atonement Christ's death didn't accomplish anything. Maybe that's not what you are saying, but I feel a bit offended by that.

An interesting fact is that in the old covenant, the atonement sacrifice was made for all the Israeli people, but not every person atonement was made for was saved.

zoidar · Jun 22, 2021

Hammster said:
If Christ’s death actually accomplished something (which I think Colossians 2:14 says it does), and the Father still punished anyone, He thinks little of the sacrifice that He covenanted with His Son to perform.

An interesting thing in Col 2:14:

Having canceled out the "certificate of debt" (the handwriting) consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
— Colossians 2:14

What was the handwriting? I suggest it is the Mosaic Law, not the ten commandments. The ten commandments were written by the finger of God, not by hand.

Hammster · Jun 22, 2021

John Mullally said:
You have a habit of firing back with what-aboutist one-liners that never addresses in-depth scriptural arguments of other posters. The content of these curt responses frequently prove you are not listening.

Regardless, I’m not going to have an uncivilized discussion.

Hammster · Jun 22, 2021

zoidar said:
Just because something has been fixed, doesn't necessarly free the perpetrator. If someone smashes your car and your dad pays for the damage, I suspect you still would hold the perpetrator responsible, looking for a compensation?

Not if my dad says that he’s paying for on someone else’s behalf. Then I’d be disrespectful of my dad.

Hammster · Jun 22, 2021

zoidar said:
It feels like you are saying that with my view of atonement Christ's death didn't accomplish anything. Maybe that's not what you are saying, but I feel a bit offended by that.

An interesting fact is that in the old covenant, the atonement sacrifice was made for all the Israeli people, but not every person atonement was made for was saved.

I’m saying that it appears that your understanding of the atonement is inconsistent because it Has Christ paying for a debt that some people will also have to pay later.

Calvinism and its Secret Universalism

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

Psalm 144:1

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

Psalm 144:1

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

Psalm 144:1

Psalm 144:1

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

Psalm 144:1

Psalm 144:1

Active Member

Well-Known Member

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

Psalm 144:1

Psalm 144:1

Psalm 144:1

Similar threads